Not true, there is lots of evidence for evolution.<quoted text>
This "Buy-bull" is this a book on evolution?
Posted earlier by derek4
Challenging Darwin's Myths
The essence of Darwin's theory is that all living creatures descended from a single anscestor. All the plants, animals, and other organisms that exist today are products of random mutation and natural selectionÂor survival of the fittest.
According to Darwin, nature acts like a breeder, carefully scrutinizing every organism. As useful new traits appear, they are preserved and passed on to the next generation. Harmful traits are eliminated. Although each individual change is relatively small, these changes eventually accumulate until organisms develop new limbs, organs, or other parts. Given enough time, organisms may change so radically that they bear almost no resemblance to their original ancsestor.
Most importantly, all this happens without any purposeful inputÂno Creator, no Intelligent Designer. In Darwin's view, chance and nature are all you need.
This all sounds very elegant and plausible. Problem is, it's never been supported by any convincing data.
And none for god.
I've asked you many times for some, and you haven't provided ANY.
Why? Seems to me the vast, vast majority of animals who die would not be fossilized. And members of species that didn't quite "make it" would be less likely to be fossilized, and they would end up in the gut of members of species who did.For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.
All creationists can say is, "Zap! God did it."As Darwin himself pointed out in his book, The Origin of Species:
...The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth,[must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Darwin, of course, attributed this problem to the imperfection of the fossil evidence, and the youthful state of paleontology. As the discipline matured, and as scientists found more fossils, the gaps would slowly start to fill.
Â... Darwinism is ultimately based as much on philosophical assumptions as on scientific evidence.
This admission, which took place at a national meeting of country's largest science society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, scandalized the Darwinist community, which likes to portray evolution as an indisputable fact. It was all the more scandalous because the speaker had specifically been invited to the meeting to denounce Johnson.
So things are slowly beginning to change. Creationists are still far from winning, but things are getting better. As Johnson points out, creationist arguments are getting more sophisticated, while most Darwinists are still responding with cliches. Thus, it's now the creationists who come across as asking the hard questions, and demanding fair debate.
They don't have any actual arguments.